[lapcat]

> It's not $44B that twitter will have available and can spend. Most (all?) will go to current investors to buy their stocks at a set price, which is where the $44B comes from

Why did you feel the need to mention this 100% obvious fact?

Of course I meant that the new owners wouldn't shut down something they just spent $44 billion on, thereby throwing their investment in the trash, not that Twitter would magically get a $44 billion operating cash infusion.

[verdverm]

You called it an investment, it is not an investment, it is an acquisition.

It was not 100% obvious what you were implying, obviously

[lapcat]

> You called it an investment, it is not an investment, it is an acquisition.

Okthanksbye.

> It was not 100% obvious what you were implying, obviously

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[verdverm]

In Comments

Be kind. Don't be snarky.

---

I see you've edited it now to be more clear